What to expect when you finally go for a haircut in Nova Scotia – The Telegram

Stylists and salon owners in Nova Scotia now know what new regulations could be put in place to reopen after being closed due to COVID-19 public health prevention measures.

The regulations were outlined during a video conference hosted by the Cosmetology Association of Nova Scotia on Thursday, which they said are in the process of being reviewed by Nova Scotia’s chief medical officer Robert Strang. Strang must give approval before they are implemented.

These regulations dictate all staff and clients must wear masks at all times. Staff can choose to wear a face shield instead.

There will be no waiting rooms (clients have to stay in their cars until receiving a text they can come in), no magazines to look at and no drinks available for clients.

If there can’t be six feet between workstations or sinks, a Plexiglas divider must be installed. All reception desks also need a Plexiglas shield and customers can’t touch retail items until after purchase.

The regulations also forbid double booking clients — a common practice in the beauty industry which allows a stylist to work on more than one client at a time. While one client’s colour is setting, a stylist could start another or do a cut, which increases their earning potential. Estheticians could also start a new customer’s nails while the previous one has dried — but with no waiting rooms, they can’t.

This inevitable loss in revenue is causing concern for many in the industry, despite their eagerness to get back to work.

Tracie Breski smiles for a selfie inside her Sydney business, Tracie’s Salon and Spa, before having to close due to COVID-19 prevention measures. – Contributed

“When you’re working and you’re used to working on three or four clients at a time, taking it down to one is going to be hard,” said Alma Head, owner of two Alma’s Family Hair Salon and Tanning locations.

“That’s going to be a little hard for the profits. Hairdressers live off of double bookings… No customers means no money but hopefully in a few months it can go back to our new normal, whatever that is.”

Tracie Breski, owner of Tracie’s Salon and Spa in Sydney, also admitted she was a bit concerned about the loss of revenue for her and her staff.

“We will be working with half the volume of clients we were dealing with before,” said Breskie, who’s been in the industry for 30 years. “It was suggested we raise our prices to offset the loss of revenues and the increase in overhead, but my goal wouldn’t be to put that responsibility back on the client… It’s not their fault this happened.”

Head also thinks raising prices isn’t feasible.

“Unless the $80 colour turns into a $200 colour, we can’t raise our prices enough to cover the losses,” she said, noting she hopes the regulations will relax in a few months.

“At the end of the week, you’re going to have some stylists asking is this worth it… If it continues like this, we’re going to see a lot of people leaving this industry.”

Challenges aside, both salon owners said they were motivated by the video conference, eager to reopen and happy to learn what they’d need to do before getting back to business.

Head, a stylist for more than 30 years, has already started renovating her two salons (in New Waterford and Sydney) estimates it will cost $10,000. Breski is starting to work out the details for her Sydney salon, determining what can be moved to keep six feet (two metres) in between stations and sourcing quotes for Plexiglas dividers. She also estimates costs for her will be “in the thousands” to get the work done.

However, both are determined to get back to business and make the new style of services work. Focusing on the positives, both stress their main priority is keeping their staff and clients safe and they plan to follow all regulations by the book. At the end of the day, they just want to be working again.

“I love the spa. I love it,” said Breski. “I love going there. I love the staff. I love the clients. It’s our family. This has all be hard emotionally.”

A major British clinical trial has found hydroxychloroquine has “no benefit” for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, scientists said Friday, in the first large-scale study to provide results for a drug at the center of political and scientific controversy.

Hydroxychloroquine, a decades-old malaria and rheumatoid arthritis drug, has been touted as a possible treatment for the new coronavirus by high profile figures, including US President Donald Trump, and has been included in several randomized clinical trials.

The University of Oxford’s Recovery trial, the biggest of these so far to come forward with findings, said that it would now stop recruiting patients to be given hydroxychloroquine “with immediate effect”.

“Our conclusion is that this treatment does not reduce the risk of dying from COVID among hospital patients and that clearly has a significant importance for the way patients are treated, not only in the UK, but all around the world,” said Martin Landray, an Oxford professor of medicine and epidemiology who co-leads the study.

The randomized clinical trial—considered the gold standard for clinical investigation—has recruited a total of 11,000 patients from 175 hospitals in the UK to test a range of potential treatments.

Other drugs continuing to be tested include: the combination of HIV antivirals Lopinavir and Ritonavir; a low dose of the steroid Dexamethasone, typically used to reduce inflammation; antibiotic Azithromycin; and the anti inflammatory drug Tocilizumab.

Researchers are also testing convalescent plasma from the blood of people who have recovered from COVID-19, which contains antibodies to fight the virus.

Researchers said 1,542 patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3,132 patients given standard hospital care alone.

They found “no significant difference” in mortality after 28 days between the two groups, and no evidence that treatment with the drug shortens the amount of time spent in hospital.

“This is a really important result, at last providing unequivocal evidence that hydroxychloroquine is of no value in treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19,” said Peter Openshaw, a professor at Imperial College London, in reaction to the results.

He added that the drug was “quite toxic” so halting the trials would be of benefit to patients.

Hydroxychloroquine has been in use for years but it has a number of potentially serious side effects, including heart arrhythmia.

Researchers from the Recovery trial said they would share their data with the World Health Organization (WHO), which on Wednesday restarted its own trials of hydroxychloroquine.

They were temporarily halted last month because of a now-retracted observational study in The Lancet medical journal that had suggested hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, a related compound, were ineffective against COVID-19 and even increased the risk of death.

Authors of The Lancet research said on Thursday that they could no longer vouch for the integrity of its underlying data, in the face of serious concerns raised by fellow scientists over a lack of clarity about the countries and hospitals that contributed patient information.

The scandal cast a shadow over The Lancet and another top medical journal, but it did nothing to clear up the increasingly politicized question of whether or not hydroxychloroquine works as a treatment for COVID-19.

Openshaw said the Recovery trial should be credited with continuing the research until they could reach a definitive conclusion on hydroxychloroquine.

“Everyone regrets that it doesn’t work, but knowing that allows us to focus on finding drugs that actually help recovery from COVID-19,” he added.

Oxford professor Peter Horby, the lead investigator on the Recovery Trial, said there was probably a “very large number” of people around the world taking hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, with countries including the US, China and Brazil authorizing it.

A separate clinical trial on Wednesday in the US and Canada found that taking hydroxychloroquine shortly after being exposed to COVID-19 does not work to prevent infection significantly better than a placebo.

Canadanewsmedia uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT

Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.